Calmon v. Sarraille
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Principal and Agent—Fiduciary Relation—Duty or Agent—Advantage over Principal.—The relation of an agent to his principal is of a fiduciary’ nature, and not only imposes upon the agent the highest good faith toward the principal, but precludes him from obtaining any advantage over him in any transaction had by virtue of his agency.
Id.—Negotiation for Purchase of Land—Deed Obtained by Fraud of Agent—Annulment bt Principals.—Where an agent employed to negotiate for the purchase of land obtained an offer for a specific sum, and falsely represented to his principals that the vendor insisted, in addition, upon a deed of a lot belonging to plaintiffs, whereby the principals were induced to consent thereto, whereupon the agent presented a deed for their signature, falsely representing it as a deed to the purchaser, when in fact it was a deed to himself, which he afterwards recorded, and the purchaser merely received the agreed purchase money, the principals, upon discovery of the fraud of the agent, are entitled to set aside the deed to hint for such fraud.
Id.—Failure to Bead Deed to Agent.—The failure of the principals to read the deed to the agent, under his representation that it was a deed to the purchaser, does not bind the principals by its terms.
Id.—Willingness to Give Deed—Injury to Principals.—The willingness of the principals to give the deed, in addition to the purchase money, induced by the fraud of the agent, cannot justify the agent in retaining the fruits of his fraud on the ground that the principals have sustained no injury because of such willingness.
Id.—Death of Agent Pending Suit—Substitution of Administratrix —Competency of Plaintiffs as Witnesses.—The death of the agent pending the suit to set aside the deed to him for fraud in procuring it, and the substitution of his administratrix as defendant, cannot affect the competency of the plaintiffs as witnesses. The action is not upon a claim against the estate, but is brought to establish that the land sued for never became part of his estate.
HARRISON, C.
Action to set aside a deed. Judgitient was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and from this judgment and an order denying a new trial the defendant has appealed.
The plaintiffs employed Frederic Gamier to negotiate for them with Josephine Beyersdorff, who was the owner of a
[640]
certain lot of land in San Francisco, for its purchase. As a result of his negotiations he obtained her offer to sell the same for the sum of $11,500. The plaintiffs were at that time the owners of another lot of land in San Francisco of the value of $1,150. After Gamier had received this offer he represented to the plaintiffs that Mrs. Beyersdorff would sell the land to them for $11,500 and the lot of land owned by them, and would not sell it for any less amount. The plaintiffs believed this representation, and on January 2, 1901, purchased the land, and paid therefor the sum of $11,500 in money, and also executed a conveyance of the lot of land owned by them. This representation of Gamier was in fact false. Mrs. Beyersdorff had agreed with him to accept the sum of $11,500 in money for her property, and did not in fact at any time demand in addition thereto a conveyance of the plaintiffs’ lot of land, nor was anything said by her as to conveying the plaintiffs’ lot as a part of the purchase price. All that she received for her land was the sum of $11,500.
When the parties came to close up the transaction Gamier had plaintiffs go with him to the office of Mr. Brownstone, who acted as agent for Mrs. Beyersdorff, and while there presented an instrument to them which he requested them to sign, and which was in fact a conveyance of their lot to himself. They did not read the instrument, but Gamier, represented to them that it was a conveyance of their lot to Mrs. Beyersdorff as a part of the consideration for her property, and stated that after they had executed this deed to her they would go and pay to Mrs. Beyersdorff the $11,500 and get her deed to the other lot. They thereupon signed and acknowledged this deed, and .left it with the notary; and then the plaintiffs and Gamier went to the office of Mr. Comte, where Mrs. Beyersdorff was waiting to complete the transaction, and paid her the $11,500 and received the conveyance of her lot. Gamier did not have the deed to himself recorded until April 4, 1901, and until that time the plaintiffs believed that the instrument executed by them was a conveyance of their lot to Mrs. Beyersdorff as a part of the purchase price for her lot. Immediately upon learning this fact they brought the present action to set aside their deed to him. and have the same annulled. After the action was at issue, and before it came on for trial, Gamier died, and his
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)